this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
216 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
81026 readers
4276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You didn't correct it though. You added a random element to an existing thought experiment based on the way the world is as we currently know it. That's like "correcting" the trolley problem by saying "but what if aliens appeared with a second switch that saved everyone!?"
The thought experiment already has a random element in it because the risk depends on exactly which man or bear you ran into in the woods, so it is intrinsically statistical. Thus, I am not fundamentally changing the nature of the thought experiment, only extending the distribution of bears to include polar bears.
This is, again, necessary to account for the fact that soon our forests will be invaded by polar bears due to the scourge of global warming. 🙁 Worse, although they rarely attack people now, the times when they do so are usually when they are nutritionally stressed, and that is likely to be increasingly the case as they migrate south in desperation.
Let me try again: You're adding a nonsensical element to a thought experiment that doesn't fit the context of the world we currently live in. Polar bears aren't likely to become forest dwelling animals in our lifetime, if ever (they'll probably go extinct first), so that part is irrelevant, and you're still missing the whole point of the thought experiment. You're trying to warp something in a stupid way and you seem to believe that you sound really smart while doing it. Check yourself. Your ego is making a fool of you.
Not trying to be mean. Just pointing out that you have some egg on your face.
I think that you are reading way too much into my whimsical injection of polar bears into the picture. 😆
Having said that, there was an element of my position that was sincere, which was that it should technically matter what bear you run into. However, MagicShel has changed my mind on this with the following comment above:
Of course, all of this to some extent is beside the point because the important thing is not whether the thought experiment is technically valid or not but why women respond to it the way that they do, because if they feel that a random man is likely to be dangerous enough that they would prefer a random bear—and unfortunately violence against women is prevalent enough that this is not such an unreasonable reaction—then that reveals a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
There it is!
I had already made essentially this point earlier in another comment the day before in this post. The only way in which I have changed my position since then is that I now take the thought experiment a little more seriously as a thought experiment, rather than it merely being a useful vehicle for women to express how unsafe men make them collectively feel.
Perhaps you might consider that you yourself should put a little more thought into your posts, rather than making poor assumptions about other people.
I haven't made any assumptions about you. I've only pointed out things I saw in your posts in this thread. I haven't read your posts elsewhere, nor am I interested in doing so. Glad you got it thought!